MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2544591494 · doi:10.1017/s1743921316006475

Radial Infall onto a Massive Molecular Filament

2015· article· en· W2544591494 on OpenAlexaff
Cara Battersby, Philip C. Myers, Yancy L. Shirley, Eric Keto, Helen Kirk

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtein filamentAstrophysicsPhysicsStar formationMolecular cloudLine (geometry)StarsGeometryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The newly discovered Massive Molecular Filament (MMF) G32.02+0.05 (~ 70 pc long, 105 M⊙) has been shaped and compressed by older generations of massive stars. The similarity of this filament in physical structure (density profile, temperature) to much smaller star-forming filaments, suggests that the mechanism to form such filaments may be a universal process. The densest portion of the filament, apparent as an Infrared Dark Cloud (IRDC) shows a range of massive star formation signatures throughout. We investigate the kinematics in this filament and find widespread inverse P cygni asymmetric line profiles. These line asymmetries are interpreted as a signature of large-scale radial collapse. Using line asymmetries observed with optically thick HCO+ (1-0) and optically thin H13CO+ (1-0) across a range of massive star forming regions in the filament, we estimate the global radial infall rate of the filament to range from a few 100 to a few 1000 M⊙ Myr−1 pc−1. At its current infall rate the densest portions of the cloud will more than double their current mass within a Myr.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207